Newspapers and TV stations across the US have reduced their coverage of climate change in recent years and it is now harder for the public to get the full information. This despite the fact that a NOAA report published this week revealed that the warming has not stopped and even accelerated
Opinion: Fight global warming by taking over the media reporting on it
Just a month ago, the employees of the prestigious Los Angeles Times were saved from a sale to the oil magnates the Koch brothers from Texas, which among other things resulted from the fear that the brothers, who spent over one hundred million dollars out of their pockets with the stated goal of changing the nature of the public debate regarding global warming, would cause the newspaper's liberal line to change .
As is known in the USA, sticking to the scientific consensus or moving away from it depends on the political affiliation and there people are required to decide: if their position is right-wing, they also have to deny warming and evolution and if they support the scientific position (which in reality is politically impartial) they are suspected of being left-wing.
But it turns out that this was only the first dish among the minds of the global warming deniers in the name and mission of the conventional energy giants.
It turns out that you don't need billions to take over a journalistic system and change its line. It is enough to push a person who believes with all his heart in the denial of science (who calls himself the washed-up nickname "climate skeptic".)
This week the same website - Media Matters reveals that The New York Times continues to ignore environmental issues, And this week he did not report on an important report by the administration and a statement by scientists indicating that global warming is intensifying. This happened just months after the newspaper closed the environmental desk as well as the environmental blog that was supposed to ensure that there would be no drop in coverage.
On Monday, the American Geophysical Union (AGU), a scientific organization that includes thousands of Earth scientists, released its quarterly statement that "humanity has a major impact on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years." The next day, the US Oceanographic and Atmospheric Agency, NOAA, published its annual report on the state of the climate, which stated that The year 2012 was among the ten hottest years in history, and that this year a particularly low coverage of the Arctic sea ice was recorded.
According to the charts in the report, global temperatures have increased since 1970 by 0.16°C per decade, and a map was drawn showing the shrinking of the Arctic sea ice cover in those years.
Other major newspapers such as the Los Angeles Times and even the conservative Fox News website published news about these reports. But in the New York Times - silence. In January 2013, as mentioned, the New York Times closed the environmental desk due to structural changes, but promised that it is expected to cover the issue with the same intensity. Many, including The Times' ombudsman Margaret Sullivan, expressed concern that coverage would suffer as a result. In March, the green blog was also closed, which was used to complete the environmental reports and usually also covered news that the printed magazine ignored. This time Sullivan made it clear that she feared coverage of this important issue would suffer. The Times continued to host blogs devoted to horse racing, crossword puzzles and wiretapping.
Newspapers and TV stations across the US have reduced their coverage of climate change in recent years and it is now harder for the public to get the full information.
About two weeks ago, a former reporter of the Reuters news agency published A blog post accusing his former employer of neglecting climate change coverage. Fogarty, who covered the field in Asia, said that he was told that climate change (again a washed-up name, which the opponents planted instead of the correct name - global warming), is not on the news service's list of priorities. Fogarty described a senior editor named Paul Ingrassia as a climate skeptic and said it would become increasingly difficult to publish stories about global warming under his leadership.
"In April 2012, Ingrassia and I, then the deputy editor-in-chief, met and talked. He told me he is a climate skeptic, not a fanatic, but one who wants more evidence that humanity is causing global climate change."
Since then, he says, it has become increasingly difficult to publish stories about climate change. It was like a lottery - some of the desk editors turned a blind eye and pressed the send button for publication, others exhausted him with a million questions. A debate about how many ideas for stories created endless bureaucracy in the hands of editors who were afraid to make a decision, according to his description it is a climate of fear."
Until mid-October, it was reported that the issue of climate change is not an important issue, and it will only be so if a change in world politics occurs, such as the US joining the system of incentives to prevent emissions. Shortly thereafter, he was told that his position as a reporter covering the field had been terminated.
The website Media Matters published an analysis of the climate coverage before Ingrassia took office, which seems to corroborate Fogarty's claims. Their analysis revealed a 48% drop in the number of climate stories after the editor took over. From close to 700 stories in the six months preceding the appointment to about 350 in the six months following.
Reuters told MEDIA MATTERS in response to Fogarty's accusations: "There is no change in our systemic policy. The agency is committed to providing fair and independent coverage of climate change."
35 תגובות
I have confirmed all non-spam blocked comments.
Scroll back a few comments and read Nissim's response, she explains the ice thing and why you shouldn't get excited about it temporarily, after a very drastic drop, and that it doesn't show a change in trend. I am patiently awaiting the IPCC report. All these things are designed to make spins and influence governments to reject the report, as you sabotaged the Copenhagen conference with the Climategate spin, which in the end turned out that apart from the fact that you managed to annoy some scientists who refused to cooperate with you because of this, nothing has changed and the earth continues to warm. So I didn't buy the spin and I don't now either.
Avi - I'm still waiting for confirmation of my response. In addition, I have read conflicting news about the ice in the Arctic Ocean and Antarctica, so I ask thirdly what the facts are and is there a clear source for this?
I read another unsigned propaganda piece, at least it was short.
As for the question of why I only cover the warming - it is because that is the consensus, and that one cold winter or even one cold summer does not change a 30-year trend, what is more, there are many clear trends such as the shrinking of the ice cover in the Arctic Ocean, the increase in the acidity of the seas (a direct result of carbon dioxide even before the warming itself), extensive urbanization and other things that will not cause the trend to change. The earth is not so healthy as the anonymous writer describes it.
Your cynicism is at its peak in this article.
For years the concept of global warming has dominated the media, and as it crumbles before your eyes, you lament it. This whole site is full of articles dealing exclusively with global warming, and there is no place for articles by skeptics about the concept.
The term "2012 was among the ten hottest years in history" is demagogic word washing that has no scientific basis. No one in the world has measured all the temperatures in history, at most you can say "in the last 200 years in which they measured...". And this also leaves the term in the realm of demagoguery, and hides the fact that the peak is behind us, and there have already been nine warmer years.
Read about the holy graph gone mad:
http://www.tapuz.co.il/blog/net/viewentry.aspx?EntryId=2240137
And maybe you will open your head to other thinking possibilities.
I do not agree with the Arpol's argument. In science there is never one hundred percent, but there is a sufficient approximation and in the case of warming it is very close.
Even when crossing a road you don't get run over every time unless a car passes at the exact place and at the exact second, but is that a reason not to build safety fences that prevent crossing in dangerous places and regulated crossings in other places? In both cases the physics is clear, and the disaster is inevitable.
Avi,
I am aware of the argument about the mechanism for human influence on the climate. But it has two components:
A. The human race is the main cause of the increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
B. The increase in concentration is the main cause of warming.
As far as I understand, both claims are not self-evident, since these are complex feedback mechanisms that have not yet been well understood (mainly regarding the role of the oceans as reservoirs of gases and heat). There are also claims that the increase in CO2 concentration in the distant past followed (rather than preceded) the warming.
In other words, as long as science is not able to explain with a physical model the behavior of the temperature on the Earth's surface before the existence of the human species (with any reasonable accuracy), it is difficult to quantify the influence of the human species on the process.
In some parts (the Western Antarctic) yes, in the rest not yet, but it is only a question of time and of the change in the mechanism of the currents as a result of the warming at the equator.
Sorry, father, but I didn't understand your answer, does the mass of the glaciers in the South Pole really decrease from year to year, similar to the mass of the glaciers in the North Pole? In the end, the mechanism is similar, the warm water touches the glaciers and is supposed to raise their temperature. I would appreciate a clear answer.
Since Antarctica is a continent and very high and located right on the pole, at least at the moment there are also areas where the ice continues to accumulate, but as far as I know in the sea near Antarctica there is a rapid disintegration of sea glaciers.
I just asked:
I understand, Father, that you claim that a decrease in the amount of ice at the poles proves significant warming (or effects of warming).
You talked about the North Pole. What about the South Pole? What's the situation there?
David Barzilai
Note the key word in my words, "cheap". A small word that many ignore when it is convenient for them.
Lior, you are wrong. The physics of carbon dioxide as a cause of the greenhouse is also true on Venus. There the factors may be different, but on Earth the cause of the increase in the rate of this gas is man and the fuels he burns, therefore given the increase in the rate of carbon dioxide gas in the atmosphere, the planet is warming.
It is possible that the believers in global warming are wrong in their basic approach to explaining the phenomenon to the general public. The discussion includes, in fact, two arguments:
A. The earth is warming
B. Human activity is the main cause of warming
To me, these are two completely separate arguments, and it seems to me that argument A is supported by much more solid scientific evidence than B.
Perhaps it is better first of all to concentrate, at least as a tactic, only on argument A, which will also arouse less public opposition. Then there will be a place to try to advance argument B, that is, to discuss the ability of humans to influence the climate.
And more:
http://www.eia.gov/kids/energy.cfm?page=hydrogen_home-basics-k.cfm
To demonstrate the seriousness of Alma's statements, you are invited to read about Hydrogen fuel on Wikipedia.
Among other things, it is written there as follows:
With regard to safety from unwanted explosions, hydrogen fuel in automotive vehicles is at least as safe as gasoline.
David Barzilai
Hydrogen fuel is a highly explosive substance. There is currently no cheap technology that can moderate its explosiveness. If there was a chance for such technology they would do it and no factor in the world would block it.
In my opinion, nothing is being done to speed up the development of the fuel cell that runs on hydrogen and oxygen. The lobby of the oil well owners has tremendous power, it is the one that minimizes the development of alternative engines to today's polluting internal combustion engines.
Assaf - unrelated question - are you vegetarian? (or vegan?)
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/bams-state-of-the-climate/2012.php
To another and co.:
Here, as in the responses to other lists that appear in Hidan, there is a line of "experts"
who express their opinion, an opinion based on... feelings, thoughts and... ignorance,
They should remember that when the debate is between opinion and knowledge, between feeling and fact,
There is no doubt on which side the truth is, because: a discussion is an exchange of opinions and information,
And an argument is an exchange of ignorance,
A fruitful discussion is conducted by exchanging ideas,
When there is a debate between ideas and facts,
The fruitfulness of the discussion is impaired and the discussion turns into an argument.
Allow the NOAA report?
My father - at no point did I talk about the ice sheet in the Arctic region.
And let me explain something to you in science = nothing is known "absolutely" - not gravity, not relativity, - nothing.
The Earth's system is very complex and the consequences, the positive and negative inputs - of a relatively small change in the atmospheric vehicle - it is not exactly something simple or established. - The reality is that we are probably really in a warm period right now (as far as we can tell - there are problems here too). But this does not indicate anything about the connection between the Fed and that warming - which does not behave at all according to the models they are still trying to push on us by the way - we do not know if the Fed is responsible for 100 percent, 50 percent, 30 percent or 25 percent.
----------------
Unrelated question. Who here is vegetarian? (or vegan?)
Another one, there's no need to guess what's going on with the Arctic ice sheet. There are satellites. And the physics of carbon dioxide is also completely known.
It is you who recite the mantras of the global warming deniers
Someone completely different
What do you mean by "the area of ice in the arctic region is shrinking"?
I have a feeling that you don't know what shrinks there in the North Pole and what doesn't shrink, you are merely reciting a general statement that you were told.
The same goes for the statement that burning fossil fuel has a significant impact. The good scientists are not able to calculate how much it affects, maybe for example it raises the temperature only by a million degrees Celsius every year and no more. The best computers in the world, even if they multiply their number a thousand times, are unable to prove or disprove a claim that burning fossil fuel increases the global temperature by a million degrees Celsius, the computers are too weak to do the amount of calculations to answer the question. But it's easier to pump us to have a dramatic increase in temperature, you don't need computers, you just need to shout louder.
By the way, the average global temperature in 2012 is approximately 0.1 degrees Celsius lower than in 2010. They forgot to tell you that, because it doesn't suit the demagogic pimp. They tried to create a false impression as if the year 2012 was hotter than all its predecessors.
Not that a drop of 0.1 degrees in a certain year is important, it's an anecdote that doesn't indicate anything. But the pimp method is to highlight ups and hide downs to create the impression that the direction is clear and leads to certain catastrophe.
As for the increase in carbon dioxide, a few months ago we were told that now it exceeds 400 units. But discount the annual average reading which is around 394 or 395 this year. Why did they shout 400 400 because it was intended to sow fear in the public as if something terrible was happening, Alek "broke the line of 400".
Besides, do you know that a significant part of the carbon dioxide produced by fossil fuel is swallowed by the oceans and the land?
to 1. You defined the warming as a theory.
The ice area in the Arctic region is not a theory but a fact
Just like the warming measurements. The claim that the millions of tons do not have
of carbon dioxide and ash produced by man during burning
Fossil fuels have an effect on global warming - this is a null claim
A reasonable person cannot take it seriously.
Burning fossil fuels is destroying the planet, the question
She is why it is so hard for you and your peers to recognize this.
R.H. Rafai.M - You are absolutely right - there is no room for opposing opinions or discussion in science. Whoever goes against the consensus is necessarily wrong and most likely at the expense of someone or just crazy - not to mention that he is dangerous for the whole world because he misleads the public on a matter of life or death……….[facepalm] …..
[For the avoidance of doubt, everything is said with sarcasm]
my father
No need to wait for trolls.
When you see them writing nonsense you need to post facts, and then block the trolls who try to misrepresent their own 'facts'.
If they want to post their bullshit, do it somewhere else.
This is a scientific site and not a site for presenting and debating nonsense.
If they have a problem, let them go.
You don't have to post their bullshit.
Post facts, and they will look for a place to present their nonsense.
No need to block unless you reach the level of trolls. I constantly publish the data and links to reports, the fact that they read them selectively or suspect every word as if there are vested interests behind it, is their problem.
It is terribly upsetting that they have taken over a party and media in the US to silence or at least drown out the scientific position, instead of conducting a real data-to-data dialogue.
And at least in the case of their nonsense they are less harmful at least in the short term than the readers to avoid vaccines.
Avi Blizovsky
Not everyone gets money from the tycoons.
There are also those who do not understand what they are talking about, but they talk and cause damage to the 'nature guards'.
They need to be handled in a different way than the tycoons' "salaried employees" are handled.
Either block them or show them the factual data - and then block them from commenting.
This is your site, not theirs. And the majority refers to this site as a scientific site.
Either you write the facts and shut them up, or you settle with them in the middle and publish both the facts and the nonsense they write. (And if you choose to publish their nonsense as well, then don't be surprised that they will write nonsense)
Requiring to belong to these circles of scientists in order to be relevant is like requiring someone to be an astrologer so that he can say that astrology doesn't work.
What you have never understood is that the mirror is always crooked, science will always reflect the humans who study it, and there are enough reasons for even decent scientists to have a bias in their research.
If you "take over" communications and say that the world works, you will not progress anywhere - what do you want to do? What is the solution you offer?
You have forgotten or you are deliberately ignoring the sharp increase in carbon dioxide levels, something whose physics is clear and known. You try to put the blame on the water - there man has no control and in addition, their evaporation increases due to the warming caused by the carbon dioxide.
There are a lot of clichés of global warming deniers that you repeat like a parrot, while science checks itself and updates itself every year from hundreds of thousands of measurements and again and again comes to the painful conclusion.
But whatever the oil gods will do, they will spend hundreds of millions of dollars on propagandists who will brainwash people like you into not paying taxes to correct the injustice they caused.
The IPCC scientists are credible, and form the core of the climate profession. Their positions reflect reality as science reveals it. If you don't like the reflection, that's your problem, you can't claim that the mirror is crooked
The problem with the global warming theory is:
1. It is a theory. They did not prove it.
2. It refers to the short time period of a few hundred years, when everyone who deals with the long period of time knows that we are in a warming period within the ice/warming cycles. In fact we will be in a warming period for another 1000 years followed by a slow descent into an ice age. Warmer periods with more carbon 14 in the atmosphere are already known in the Earth's climatic past.
3. The theory does not adequately answer climatic changes and phenomena, while the study of the sun's influence answers things better.
4. The followers of the theory behave like a cult - they consider themselves to be right, discredit every person with a different opinion, forgetting that there are other scientists in the world who think differently and try to silence them. In addition, they tend to call everything apocalypse that will come in a moment because the world is warming, even though they have not been able to prove that the reasons they point to are the causes of warming (for example, the most common greenhouse gas in the air is not carbon dioxide, but water - several dozen times more common and more The movement of the earth relative to the sun and its inclination also have a much greater effect than another 0.0001% of carbon dioxide will).
In short - here is another article (which at least has "opinion" written on it) that is loaded with theories that are presented as paradigms even though they were not actually accepted by the scientific community, but only by one and noisy segment of it. Calling other opinions by names and arguing that their statements are "washed" instead of dealing with the claim does not add to science and really does not raise the horn of the scientist, on the contrary.
If the scientist wants to become a mouthpiece for the opinions of one side and not give a platform to the set of claims in a clear way that provides information and not out of demagoguery and cheap populism, he should start changing his recently broken ways.